From: Peter Michaelson [pmichaelson@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: S7-23-03
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am astounded by the volume of correspondence you are receiving regarding
'abusive naked short selling'. In none of these letters do I see a shred
of evidence that any form of short-selling is the cause of these peoples'
losses.
In fact, the two most mentioned companies, USXP and PCBM, have both had
serious legal difficulties. Amazingly, PCBM was sued by SEC Enforcement
itself!! Yet still its shareholders blame short-sellers.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17507.htm SEC FILES FRAUD
CHARGES AGAINST PINNACLE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC., VINCENT A. LO CASTRO
AND JEFFREY G. TURINO"
And USXP is so righteous that it has asked the Department of Justice to
investigate the SEC! Apparently the short-selling conspirators have even
co-opted the SEC. Is this a satire or real life?
"Oct 29, 2003 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire)"Universal
Express, Inc's (OTCBB: USXP), General Counsel, Chris G. Gunderson, disclosed
that he has sent a letter to the United States Attorney in Miami requesting
that the Justice Department conduct an investigation of Hugh Beck and others
at the Denver Office of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
for issuing a subpoena to Universal Express."
It is the company insiders who are responsible for these people's pain - not
independent short-sellers. The term 'independent short-sellers' excludes
insiders, promoters and the toxic financers they rely upon, who together are
likely responsible for most of the short-selling.
Please base rule changes on material evidence, not the outcry of a sorely
misinformed public. As Forbes Magazine said "What's really making these
stocks go down: the way the trades are cleared--or how the managers run
the firms?" http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/066_2.html
Thank you, Peter Michaelson